The Buckeye Thread

[cgmccary]

nevermind

 

[Arielle]

007Medic-- IT takes a lot of handling to learn how a bird feels-- it is something I still struggle with myself. I look to "see" a bird and again, I still have far to go but I know with practice I am getting better. After 20 yrs of eval horses I can "see" a horse very quickly. We don't get to touch the horses except for the mouth other wise everything is visual and takes much experience. Practice. I feel the legs of my horses and know them well. I feel the chickens the same way. But a chicken feels different than a horse, I my hands need to learn a new body.

I have mentioned it many times: a heavy animal does not equate heavy muscling. Only feeling by hand or an eval at slaughter gives that information.

 

[Blueface]

As Christmas approaches, I'm thinking of developing a biometrics program for our flock here. I plan to use the program in making breeding selections based on objective data vs subjective eye. I've got the digital scale, calipers are no problem in obtaining, but I'm wondering what measurements everyone else considers important or if you guys have any thoughts. Currently my list is:

skull width
shoulder width
heart girth
length of back
thickness of shank

Any suggestions?

Sure; don't make things so complicated. How are you going to compensate for the error involved with an "precise" measurement not to mention if the calipers being used are actually calibrated. They are just chickens. A little bit of common sense coupled with the healthiest specimens will be much easier; IMO. That's the first time in my 25 years of raising poultry I've ever heard the term biometrics and flock used in the sentence.

 

[Blueface]

Vent area width and depth, although most gauge by finger/palm size.  Keel length, although it can be difficult to tell on some birds.  Wing size, as far as meat/bone is concerned.

I've got some digital calipers that go to micrometre I plan to go over my birds with the first weekend of January.   I'll try to get you an idea of what mine measure out to.

That is a good point; I use the method described to help cull through my females. If they aren't three fingers wide across the pelvic bones and at least 3 1/2 to 4 deep I won't use them to breed with.

To expand on my previous comments; it's more important to me that the birds are proportionally built. In order to determine that; you kind of need an eye for the breed and a basic understanding of poultry in general. All the measurements in the world will tell you the bird under examination is proportional.

If you don't have a basic understanding of poultry; those first 40 pages in the SOP are going to look like Spanish.

 

[Blueface]

I have heard of crazy methods to determine which bird to keep. One person said they would throw their Buckeye cockerels in a bull pen with a game cock. The one that did not back down or stayed the longest was the one kept. I don't think this is a good method of selecting which Buckeye cockerel to keep. I would use some of the traits listed here in lieu of bravery. My bravest bird has not always turned out to be the best one -- but whatever works for you. I am interested to hear any other methods used. Even if it seems crazy, share the idea. I am open to new ideas, always looking for something new.

Personally I find it very telling of a person that chooses to actually believe such nonsense that was originally put out there to get a rise out of a few special people; again I must stress common sense. But in today's day and age common sense should be considered a super power

 

[Blueface]

The only numbers I keep year-to-year are weights at the same age. Because I keep up with weights, I know my Buckeyes overall  have gotten larger over time. Of course, I know this too because I am generally not having to select based upon weight.

When measuring weights; do you take fat content into consideration? What methods do you use to determine an approximation of fat content. Especially for the mature fowl in general; fat content can provide inaccurate harvestable weights.

 

[Ivagrove]

Don't make it complicated, weight is weight. Put it on a scale and weigh it. And that's the weight,

 

[JoshU]

When measuring weights; do you take fat content into consideration? What methods do you use to determine an approximation of fat content. Especially for the mature fowl in general; fat content can provide inaccurate weights.

I have seen where people have butchered birds to find that the poofy saddle is a fat pocket. I wonder if the poofy saddled buckeye hens I have seen carry a gene for too much fat in that area. Just an observation. I don't have that issue with mine so I wouldn't know.

 

[Blueface]

Don't make it complicated, weight is weight.  Put it on a scale and weigh it.  And that's the weight,

Sure enough; that's weight but a bird that has a pound of fat in its butt is going to feel a whole lot different than a bird of healthy weight.

 

[Arielle]

Quote: Wow-- this is the first time in all the years of reading about chickens that ANY one has said this. I agree 100%.

I once read in an OLD ag book printed about 1950 a written decription of two types of horses. Two breeds that I knew fairly well. The written descriptions were inter changeable-- but the actual horses were markedly different. I have always been cautious of written descriptions ever since. A physical example is worth a 1000 words.